Test Cricket - Information

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'm struggling to think what you got right there. Why bother making a fool of yourself if you don't know the facts?

Why bother picking insignficant holes in a long post and flaming the poster for no reason at all? Oh right, because you're petty and have something against Neil. Sorry, I forgot.

 

[Nate]

1870s actually



All before the second world war actually.



Not on independence, five years after independence.

I'm struggling to think what you got right there. Why bother making a fool of yourself if you don't know the facts?

Geez dude, that seemed a bit harsh. We get your point.

 

[Neil Pickup]

First of all. Thank you very much. You have explained me several things. I am Italian. I live in Udine, which is a town in the north-east of Italy (very close to Austria and Slovenia). I am a baseball researcher (and former referee), but in the last months I began to follow cricket. I have purchased some DVDs and I watched some games.

What can I say? Since I know baseball, it wasn't so difficult to understand the basics of cricket, although there are lots of things which are obscure.

For example: I realize that Scotland and Namibia (or Kenya) cannot play a test match for the reasons you have written. But could they play a 5-day match between themselves (without being considered a test match)? Or even a series?

I would like to give you some historical information: in 1867, it was founded a baseball team (the Cincinnati Baseball Club), whose player would be called the Red Stockings. Two years later, this team played 68 games against other teams coming from all USA. The Cincinnati Red Stockings won 67 games with 1 tie. The Captain of this team was David Wright, who was one of the greatest CRICKET player from Boston.

Translation of this sentence:

IO sono mezzo italiano... papa sri lankese e mamma Italiana... Qui in italia c'è un campionato italiano di cricket!!!!

I am half italian. Dad sri lanka, mum italian. Here in Italy there is a cricket italian championship.

Scotland, Namibia and Kenya (plus Holland, Denmark, Uganda, UAE, Nepal, Canada, USA, Bermuda and Hong Kong) play a 3- and 4-day first-class tournament called the ]Intercontinental Cup on an annual basis. Five days is generally too long to be going on with at that level, and additionally a longer series isn't generally viable because most players are part-time.

 

[Neil Pickup]

whereas sri lanka just magically appeared in the test playing arena

Indeed. It's one of the great mysteries of sport.

 

[SJS]

Pakistan (on independence) became the seventh.

Sorry Neil.

Pakistan did not become Independent actually. It was born in true sense of the word.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Sorry Neil.

Pakistan did not become Independent actually. It was born in true sense of the word.

Can we split the difference and go with secession?

 

[a massive zebra]

Why bother picking insignficant holes in a long post and flaming the poster for no reason at all?

Practically all the historical information is wrong. If this history is insignificant than why bother mentioning it?

Oh right, because you're petty and have something against Neil. Sorry, I forgot.

Geez dude, that seemed a bit harsh. We get your point.

Yeah thats true but someone has to keep his already-gargantuan ego in check.

 

[Stefano]

Thanks for all your answers. I use this topic to ask you other questions.

Differences between Tests and ODI: how do you bowl? how do you bat? For what I have seen, the run scored average is higher in ODI than in Tests. I would like to know some basic things about strategy.

 

[Sir Redman]

Thanks for all your answers. I use this topic to ask you other questions.

Differences between Tests and ODI: how do you bowl? how do you bat? For what I have seen, the run scored average is higher in ODI than in Tests. I would like to know some basic things about strategy.

The cliche is that ODIs are about runs and tests about wickets.

Basically, in a test you need to bowl the opposition out twice. This means you set attacking fields and try to get the batsman out, rather than just preventing runs.

In ODIs there is rarely enough time to bowl a team out, so the focus is on stopping runs. This means you set defensive fields and just bowl accurate medium pacers because they're hard to score off.
The batsman obviously want to score as fast as possible, so tend to go hard at the bowling in the first 15 overs (when there are fielding restrcitions) and hit over the top, and after the first 15 they try and get singles almost every ball. This part is regarded as tedious by many purists because most fielders are on the boundary and there is less incentive to get a wicket. Then, in about the last 5 overs the batsmen just try and hit as many boundaries as possible with little regard to not getting out.

 

[C_C]

Hi stefano. Good to have you here.

The basic difference in Test cricket and ODI cricket is its duration - one lasts 5 days with minimum 450 overs(weather permitting that is) and the other lasts 100 overs- both sides ofcouse.
If you are wondering what an over is, an 'over' is a collection of six consecutive legal deliveries bowled by the bowler- inorder for a delivery to be legal, it can only bounce once before reaching the batsman(else it is a deadball and the ball is rebowled), the bowler's foot cannot cross a line ( else it is a noball and there is a 1 run penalty + number of runs a batsman scores off of it and the ball is rebowled) and it cannot be bowled so wide that the batsman cannot reach it ( else it is a wide and it is a 1 run penalty with the ball being rebowled).
There are some other minor tinklings in the noball rule - for example, in ODIs, you can bowl 1 bouncer per over and in Tests you can bowl 2 bouncers per over - anything more is deemed a 'noball' and the bowler is warned.
Repeated warnings might see the bowler's right to bowl revoked.
A bouncer is a ball that hits the pitch quite some way before reaching the batsman(usually) and rears to shoulder-height or above.

In one day internationals ( short form is ODIs or LOIs), the objective is to score more than the opposition in the allocated 50 overs.
So basically if you score 259/8, i have to score 260. Doesnt matter if i've lost no wickets or 9 wickets - if i lose 10 wickets( 10 outs), then my team is allout and it can only be a tie or a loss(depending on when you lost your last wicket).
The bowlers also have a limitation in that they are allowed a maximum of 10 overs per match. So in the least you have to have 5 players capable of bowling but often you want a sixth or a seventh one to relieve a bowler having a bad day.
Since ODI cricket is about scoring more runs in a limited time, your average( that is how much runs you score on average per dismissal) and your striek rate ( how many runs you score per balls faced) is on the premium.
Conventionally, a batsman with 40+ average and 80+ strike rate is deemed an alltime great in the annals of the game.
A 35+ average and a 75-ish strike rate is considered an extremely good player and a 30+ average with a 70-75 average is considered......well...average.
For a bowler, an average of around 21-22 (that is 21-22 runs conceded per wicket taken) and an economy rate of less than 4 runs per over is considered in alltime great category.
a sub 25 average with a 4-4.5 economy rate is considered extremely good and an average that is near 30 with an economy rate higher than 4.5 is seen as average.

Ofcourse, there are different ways of looking at statistics- in my opinion,your performance away from home and your performance against the best nations must be weighed appropriately.

In test cricket, time permitting(and some rules permitting), each team bats twice and the objective is to dismiss the opposition for a lower combined total than your team's.
As such, you have to dismiss 20 players ( 10 players per innings) to achieve that.
Since it is played over 5 days and bowlers have no restrictions- they can bowl as many overs as the team(captain/coach) deems, it is a much more technically challenging game, giving rise to elaborate plans and extremely good mental battle(as cricket is a very cerebral game). However, there are certain times when a team isnt required to bat twice- its a choice mind you.
Lets say my team bats first ( who bats first and who doesn't is always decieded by a simple coin-toss) and scores 600. Your team, in their first innings(remember-max 2 innings) scores 400 or less, (basically your team's first innings dig is adrift of mine's by 200 or more runs), i have the option not ask my team to go out and bat immediately but ask you to bat again for your second innings.This is called enforcing the 'follow on'. Often while a team is batting for second, in their first dig, you see a 'follow on target'. Which is how many runs they need to score inorder to prevent following on and the in order to save follow on(ie not present the opposition with the option to make you follow-on), your team's score must be within 199 runs or lower of the opposition's. Should you score more than the 200 run(or more) deficit in your second dig, then my team has to chase that down to win the match.
For example, my team scores 600 and your team scores 400. You are 200 or more runs adrift, then i ask you to bat again (remember- it isnt a hard and fast rule but merely an option i can choose to exercise). In your second dig, your team scores 335. So your aggregate is 135 over mine and thus my objective is to score 136 to win that game. Ofcourse, the game has 5 days allocated to it with 90 overs(weather permitting) to be bowled per day. As such, there may not be enough time in the 5th day for me to chase the target or for you to take all 10 wickets in my second dig. For eg, there could only be 20 overs left for my second dig and lets say my team finishes at 64/3. As such, since my team hasn't reached the target inorder to win and your team hasn't taken all 10 wickets to win, the match is a draw.
As such, you see draws in Test cricket quiete often. You do not see draws in ODI cricket, because the rules are more result-oriented- your team either overhauls my team's target or your team loses.
In rare occasions, both in Test cricket and in ODI cricket, you have a tie. Inorder to have a tie in test cricket, the aggregate scores must be level with the last batting team allout(ie, all 10 wickets have fallen). In ODI cricket, the scores must be level with the last legal delivery in the team batting second's inning has been bowled.

I think there has been only 3 tied tests and less than 10 tied ODIs in the history of the game.

Another option you have is to declare your innings closed. Basically, a team (ie a captain) can deciede to close the team's batting innings at any point he or she desires. In ODI cricket, it is almost never excercised, since the objective is to score as much runs possible and you got a 50 overs to bowl out your opposition anyways- more runs they chase the better. But in test cricket, since one has to keep an eye on how much time is left available in the game, you often see declarations.
For example, lets say your team has really poor bowlers. I score 600 in my first dig and you stutter to 250. I deciede not to enforce the follow-on and i go out to bat. My team is already 350 runs ahead and by the end of the 4th day, my team has scored 350/5 in its second dig, a total lead of 700 runs. While all my team's wickets hasn't fallen and my team can bat on as long as they wish(until last man is dismissed), it would be prudent for my team to declare their innings closed and leave you with 700 runs to chase. It would be prudent becase my objective is to win the game and i do need to allocate some time to take the opposition's 10 wickets- else they will just draw the game.


Since the objective of the game is to dismiss 20 players for a lower aggregate total, the ability to take wickets for lower scores(average of the bowler) is extremely important.
The no ball and wide rules carry over to Test cricket with the abovementioned slight difference in the noball rule.

Typically in test cricket a batsman's strike rate isnt very important-he has loads of time to make his runs and thus runs are of importance. That is not to say that a high strike rate isn't handy. A 50+ batting average is deemed in the alltime great category for a batsman and a 21-22 or under bowling average is deemed in the alltime great category for a bowler.
For a bowler, his ability to take wickets is more important than his ability to be miserly(in my opinion), as such his strike rate matters more than his economy rate. Typically, fast bowlers have a lower strike rate and average than spinners, though spinners have their perks. Since it is less stenous to bowl, a spinner can operate for a longer period of time and usually has a higher wickets per match rate. They are also vital on certain wickets and most of the time,give the team the necessary variety to be competitive.
As such, for a fast bowler, a sub-55 strike rate is deemed excellent and a sub 50 strike rate is deemed in the alltime great category.
For a spinner, it is a bit more blurred, as the role of a spinner and the approach of a spinner has changed a lot in the last 40 years.Decades ago, an average just under 30 and a strike rate of around 65-70 were deemed alltime great with low 30s average and a strike rate slightly over 70 deemed worldclass.
Of recent times, an average of high 20s/25 or under is seen as alltime great with a strike rate of 65 or under also falling into that category.
An average of low 30s with a strike rate in high 60s is seen as worldclass.
Ofcourse, as in ODI cricket, in my opinion, the appropriate statistics should always be weighed proportionately by the appropriate factors.

I hope that this post has helped you further your understanding of cricket. Cheers!

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Differences between Tests and ODI: how do you bowl? how do you bat? For what I have seen, the run scored average is higher in ODI than in Tests. I would like to know some basic things about strategy.

Most things have been covered by the previous posts, but it is significant for an understanding of the nature of cricket and the cricket fan to know a bit about the historical difference between the two forms of the game.

Test cricket was the first regular competitive form of the game between different nations, with the first test being played between England and Australia in 1877. The first official One Day International was not played until January 1971, almost 100 years later. One day forms of cricket did exist in domestic competition prior to this, and very occasionally in international matches, and in fact cricket prior to tests was quite regularly 1 day in length. However, because international cricket had been dominated by tests for a century, ODI cricket was a massive change in direction. The tactical nature of the games is totally different from both batting and bowling perspectives, and ODI is considered a much more fast-paced game, having much shorter duration, higher scoring rates, and after the advent of World Series Cricket in the mid 70s, coloured clothing, a white ball, day-night matches and so on. ODI cricket if the financial basis of international cricket in the modern era, pulling in larger crowds, bigger television audiences and so on than test cricket, as well as allowing for large scale tournaments such as the Champions Trophy and the World Cup. Test cricket is the oldest and, in a sense, "truest" form of the game, with a century of cricket history, statistics and so on having no one day cricket at all, and test cricket is usually more popular with purists, but ODIs are the far more accessible and marketable form of the game, and is undoubtedly the future of expansion into other parts of the world.

This might, in a certain sense, explain to you why Kenya and Namibia and so on are not playing test cricket, while they do play ODIs.

 

[Stefano]

Thank you! I have understood lots of things.

 

[Richard]

And in the process unfolded another chapter in Neil-amz warfare.

 

[andyc]

wow c_c, that must've taken a while! pretty good explanation, though

 

[Stefano]

The batsman obviously want to score as fast as possible, so tend to go hard at the bowling in the first 15 overs (when there are fielding restrcitions) and hit over the top, and after the first 15 they try and get singles almost every ball. This part is regarded as tedious by many purists because most fielders are on the boundary and there is less incentive to get a wicket. Then, in about the last 5 overs the batsmen just try and hit as many boundaries as possible with little regard to not getting out.

What are those fielding restrictions?

 

[C_C]

Fielding restrictions are there in both forms of cricket.

Basically, there is a circle marked around the pitch and i think it is approximately 30 yards from the center of the pitch.
You have 9 fielders at your disposal at any given time( since there is a permanent wicketkeeping position and one dude bowling at any given time) and you are allowed to have only 5 players outside that circle(known as the outfield) for the first fifteen overs of an ODI game per side-that is, only 5 men at most allowed outside the circle for the first 15 overs when your team bats and then the same rule when my team bats.
This is done to encourage boundaries and dynamic starts.( a boundary is an automatic 4 runs or six runs scored when the ball crosses the perimeter of the ground,ie,the field of play- the difference determined by the bounce factor- basically, if you hit a ball and it goes all along the ground or bounces before crossing the permimeter, its a four. if you clear the perimeter without a bounce-ie, cricket's version of a home run, then its a six)

This website gives a diagram of the common fielding positions.

Note that the batsman is standing on the opposite side of the pitch from the bowler and the three 'scratch marks' on the yellow designate the 3 stumps from an overhead view.
This layout is for the right handed batsman- for the left handed batsman, its a mirror image being flipped around.
A right handed batsman has his bat towards the 'left' side of the yellow patch in this diagram and a left handed batsman has his bat towards the 'right' side of the yellow patch in this diagram.
I know it sounds confusing, but basically right handed or left handed is based on which hand is the controller/direction-giver for your shots. The way you grip your bat, when you have your bat held towards the left side of this yellow patch(the pitch) your right hand is controlling your shots and vice versa.

In test cricket, you are allowed to have two men between(and inclusive of) the position square leg and fine leg.
Basically this rule exists in test cricket after the infamous bodyline series in the early 1930s played between england and australia. There, the english captain(Douglas Jardine) packed the leg side ( the side on the 'other half' of the field from the bat) with fielders close in and directed his bowlers to bowl fast bouncers aimed at the head on a regular basis. In such a situation, the batsman pops up a catch trying to play his shots ( defensive shots or offensive shots) and/or gets hit on the head(beaned in baseball), which can cause life threatening injuries-with or without helmet.
That tactic was deemed unfair and dangerous, so it was outlawed and packing the leg side with fielders between square leg and fine leg.

 

[C_C]

wow c_c, that must've taken a while! pretty good explanation, though

Thanks andy- i try to help if i can.

 

[Stefano]

I use this topic to ask some other questions. For example:

- The captain who wins the coin toss decides wether to bat or to field first.

Which are the advantages of batting or fielding first? When does a captain decide do bat and when does a captain decide to field?

- Do you like night games? Do players like to play with artificial lights?

Thanks.

 

[Richard]

Day\night games are almost undoubtedly the way ahead. Crowds generally flock in in a way they would not if the same game was played by the hours of a day-game. While there is still often a claim that batting second in day\night games is a disadvantage it actually very rarely proves to be the case. It's undoubted that the ball swings more at night than it does at day given the same conditions, and it's also undoubted that a small amount of dew can liven-up some pitches, but the affect this has on results is negligable.
As for the advantages of batting\fielding, the advantages of batting first are very, very few and far between - the only time it can ever be the best idea is if your team, for some reason, is ill-equipped to chase, or in the exceedingly unlikely event that the pitch is going to become more difficult for batting later on. The advantages of fielding first, however, are many - your opposition don't know how many they need, so if your bowlers bowl accurately they've got a much better chance of being economical than if they're defending 250+. Equally, you then know what you need and your batsmen can pace themselves accordingly. In certain conditions, too, there is more assistance for the seamers early on than later, and by fielding first you utilise that.
If both teams are fully equipped with outstanding swing-bowlers and the game is a day\nighter, however, it might be an idea to consider batting first.

 

[Isolator]

you are allowed to have only 5 players outside that circle(known as the outfield) for the first fifteen overs of an ODI game

I thought it was only 2 outside the circle in the first fifteen overs...?